Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courtship of Princess Leia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtship of Princess Leia[edit]

The Courtship of Princess Leia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is nothing but a long and overly-detailed plot summary. The only assertion of notability is that the book was a New York Times best seller, something I have yet to be able to confirm. Regardless, simply being an NYT best seller is not enough to establish notability. No third-party reviews in reliable sources, no news coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This appears to be the only substantial source. This one looked promising, but it only seems to be a plot summary. I found no other reviews, so I endorse deletion, but I wouldn't throw a fit if it stayed. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK #1 multiple book reviews. This book was popular in 1994, on the NYT Bestseller list, thus received attention.
By comparison, "many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed" (Virginia Tech University Library). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern with those reviews is that they appear either to be very short (a paragraph or two, thus not substantive) or from local papers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the VT link where they define the three types of book reviews. The point is not the type (summary/opinion/scholarly), but the book has been reviewed in reliable sources. Nearly all Publishers Weekly are summary type, and PW is considered a reliable source. As for local.. if all the sources were local to one place it would be discarded, but we don't discard a source just for being local, unless of course the locality is where the author is from, not the case here (I believe). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NBOOK #1 which allows a mix of shorter and longer reviews, as long as some of them have critical analysis/opinion. This doesn't exclude regional/local press - I'm not sure what policy Jerry Pepsi is basing his/her concern upon, but certainly it's not the case that interest is limited to a particular small region (unless you consider the USA to be a small region whose interests are not necessarily those of the world). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The thing about trade reviews is that there has not been a clear consensus on whether or not to discount them as reliable sources. Every once in a while there will be an argument to officially eliminate them as reliable sources (mostly under the argument that they're likely paid reviews and that they're almost always uniformly positive as a result), but there will always be someone who will argue against those points. The end result is that although they're brief, most trade review sites do not sell reviews and those that do will have them marked in a certain way. (IE, Kirkus Indie) The reviews, although brief, do go through an editorial process, which makes them pass RS guidelines. However we're lucky that we do have non-trade sources to pull from, as it might be a different story if all we had were trade reviews. (There's a difference between trying to save a book that has predominantly trade reviews but some other RS and trying to save one that only has trade reviews.) On a side note, I'm glad this could be saved, as this is my favorite SW book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK criteria #1. But perhaps the plot summary could be edited down to a more reasonable size. Novusuna talk 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not something I'd read (except at gunpoint) but it was a bestseller and fairly widely reviewed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Courtship_of_Princess_Leia&oldid=1082350909"